Talk:Warfare in early modern Scotland

Warfare in early modern Scotland has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 10, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warfare in early modern Scotland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warfare in early modern Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding more comments as the review goes on.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I will probably try to implement suggestions over the weekend as I am away the following week and may not have easy internet access.--SabreBD (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Scots privateers and pirates... doesn't make sense. Duplicate links Leith, Burntisland, Lochaber axes, trace italienne, Scots Guards and Orkney ... in ~~the~~ plaid guerre de course is unclear, simply "commerce raiding" seems better.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fix dashes using a script--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Standardize hyphens in the isbns
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I think I have done everything suggested in the review. Unfortunately, I may not have much interest access from tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am back. Is this review complete yet, or will more points be added?--SabreBD (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I have fixed the rest, so passing.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those last two things and all the other work. I wouldn't have gotten around that until tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]